A randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness of both realtime and store-and-forward teledermatology compared with conventional care

Abstract

The clinical effectiveness of realtime teledermatology, store-and-forward teledermatology and conventional outpatient dermatological care were evaluated in a randomized control trial. A total of 204 patients took part--102 patients were randomized to the realtime teledermatology consultation, 96 of whose cases were also referred using a store-and-forward technique, and 102 to the conventional outpatient consultation. There were no differences in the reported clinical outcomes of realtime teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of those randomized to the realtime teledermatology consultation, 46% required at least one subsequent hospital appointment compared with 45% of those randomized to the conventional outpatient consultation. In contrast, the dermatologist requested a subsequent hospital appointment for 69% of those seen by store-and-forward teledermatology. An analysis of costs showed that realtime teledermatology was clinically feasible but more expensive than conventional care, while the store-and-forward teledermatology consultation was less expensive but its clinical usefulness was limited. Sensitivity analysis indicated that realtime teledermatology was as economical as conventional care when less artificial assumptions were made about equipment utilization, costs and travel distances to hospital.